This month’s open thread on climate science topics.
Reader Interactions
221 Responses to "Unforced variations: Mar 2019"
TPainesays
I’m having a hard time finding data showing how much global temperature has been changed with different revisions of the reporting organizations over the years. I’ve been told it’s a lot but I doubt that. I can easily find how much the temperature is adjusted but not how much it has changed with different revisions.
[Response: This is the summary of the GISTEMP history since 1981: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/ At the global mean, changes in input data and methodology only have a small impact. Regionally these things can be more important. – gavin ]
Carriesays
MLO weekly
Week beginning on February 24, 2019: 412.40 ppm +3.62
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.78 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 388.42 ppm +2.40 avg/yr
Last updated: March 3, 2019
Making wkly growth yoy the last 6 weeks @ 3.68, 3.07, 3.82, 3.86, 2.53, and 3.62 – could be a pattern albeit a short one? January was +2.87. It’s the 2.53 week that looks more wobbly and noisy than the rest.
At the tag-end of last month’s UV thread I linked to a two-year-old graphic showing Antarctic Sea Ice nose-diving through 2016. I thought to up-date the graphic to show how things have worked out since. A graph of JAXA Antarctic SIE anomalies 1979-to-date is posted here (Usually 2 clicks to ‘download yor attachment’).
i want to know if someone have information about theory of delta T increase before delta CO2 ?
I think is about Zeller publication. is it possible to determine if temperature grow up before CO2 for few month ?
What is accuracies of TMAG temperature and CO2 ??
please give me simple explanation !
Carriesays
181 nigelj says:
3 Mar 2019 at 1:55 AM
Mike, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and whats more you do it badly. I know my views are complicated to grasp. Try harder old chap :)
===
And taking people’s words totally out of context and throwing them back in someone’s face passive aggressively while misapplying those words to something else is the lowest form of Logical Fallacies. It’s cheap as.
Can AI translate high resolution convective modeling into greater GCM realism?
Beautiful as Schneider’s first Nature results may be, it may a bit early to declare victory.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA@4
Wow, that was the most confused mess of gobbledygook that I have ever read about space weather. There might be some science in there somewhere, but buggered if I could find it.
The only part that made any sense was the contraction of Earth’s atmosphere and the effect on space junk. That’s real. The rest, and the implication that somehow this is going to freeze the planet was bullshit.
rtremblay @5,
Can you confirm which Zeller publication you speak of? Indeed, which Zeller?
I can otherwise but assume it is Karl Zeller of Nikolov & Zeller fame (aka Volokin and ReLlez) who do discuss a quantity GMAT = Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature which may be what you are calling TMAG.
For those unfamiliar with the crazy theorising of Nikolov & Zeller, they use a pile of silly pseudo-physicsal calculations to assert that atmospheric pressure is a major input into global surface temperature, comparing temperatures on Earth, the Moon, Venus, Mars Titon & Triton. So you need a good sense of humour when you read their work, eg Nikolov & Zeller (2017)
Thomas Psays
#4 Note that this cooling is in the thermosphere, 80 km altitude and up, and that “There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface.”
This is a brief 2-3 minutes presentation with snippets from a science lecture, part of a game I am working on. If the player attends he will receive some experience points of type climate science. There will be a couple of these lectures throughout the game.
Another aspect will be some sort of research facility, with super computers, climate proxy laboratory, where the player can initiate experiments, ie. modeling future climate scenarios. Results will unlock certain NPCs who provide subsequent missions, ie. travel to Siberia ESAS region, or to Alaska Fairbanks, conduct a field trip to collect soil samples, or in remote Greenland research station.
Marcosays
Mr KIA:
from the Fox article:
“Mr Mlynczak later clarified to Climate Feedback that there was no relationship between temperatures in space and that on earth.
He said: “There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface.
“NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface.””
Phil Lsays
4 Mr. KIA
“The stories claim to be based on a September 27th article at Space Weather Archive, in which NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak discusses the influence of current low solar activity on the Earth’s thermosphere—a layer of the atmosphere that begins about 65 miles above the surface. Mlynczak explained to Climate Feedback that headline claims of coming cold weather are “false”:
‘There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface. NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface.'”
Carrie “And taking people’s words totally out of context and throwing them back in someone’s face passive aggressively while misapplying those words to something else is the lowest form of Logical Fallacies. It’s cheap as.”
You are quite right, except I didn’t do that to Mike. I simply stated the facts.
Erik Lindebergsays
What is going on with GRACE-FO? I understand they had to turn off the main unit June 19. 2018, but were back on a backup unit October 19. There have not been any information on their web-site since November 1. 2018. Can we expect a long gap in the data when they arrive? How long gap? Anyone? Are there anyone here from GFZ/JPL/NASA that now anything? I posted my concern also i the February thread, but received only silence.
14 nigelj – (sigh) I was talking about mike not what you said you silly billy. :-)
Martin Smithsays
This paper is bouncing around in the echo chamber, because the author concludes our added CO2 has only a negligible effect on the temperature. I don’t understand the abstract. Can someone here explain it? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta
Rtremblay @5 The usual basis for identifying an increase of atmospheric CO2 before the temperature starts to rise is the atmospheric record of CO2 from bubbles in the ice in Antarctica, where the longest records exist. However, it is tricky to estimate the precise relationship between temperature (usual proxy, delta deuterium in the ice) and CO2 (recorded in bubbles in the ice) because there is a time lag between initial ice deposition (temperature record) and the “sealing” of the atmospheric ice bubbles by compaction in the snow. Even so, it seems apparent that atmospheric CO2 begins to rise shortly (a few hundred years) before global temperatures start to increase. This is no surprise; glacial-interglacial climate oscillations are understood to be driven or paced by changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry (Hays, Imbrie, Shackleton Science 1976) and these oscillations in turn have driven or paced the climate changes. The oceans warm, circulation patterns changes, the oceans release CO2, and this in turn contributes to the ongoing climate change, so that CO2 is both a response and a feedback. The current situation is somewhat different because orbital factors are probably (but cf Berger and Loutre, Science 2002 on this) driving the climate the other way, towards cooling, whilst anthropogenic CO2 is overwhelmingly forcing it in the opposite direction, towards warming. I’m sure that this has been covered by many previous posts.
David Yorksays
#4 If you actually investigated the science, you would find that the NASA scientist is talking about cooling in the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, and he explicitly states that this cooling has NO effect on the lower atmosphere, which is warming and will continue to warm. The current cold in parts of the Northern Hemisphere is because it’s winter. If you don’t understand what causes winter, I’m sure you can find the information somewhere on the internet. You have heard of the internet, right???
That “pressure causes temperature” meme has been making the rounds in denialist circles for a long time now, although it’s usually applied to Venus. It’s a misapplication of the ideal gas law, which does indeed show that if you compress some gas, it heats up. But if a one-time compression event had happened on Venus, the heat would have radiated away by now (since, according to the pressure puppies, there is no greenhouse effect). Static pressure does NOT create heat, otherwise you’d have a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. And the Marianas Trench would be boiling instead of icy cold.
The GCP initial estimates for 2018 FF CO2 emissions published last November (the stuff that gets the skyrocketeers sniffing the smoke from the blue-touch-paper and they love the smell of blue-touch-paper in the morning): these estimates have been revised downward somewhat as reported by CarbonBrief. The 2018 LUC numbers are still in the calculator.
The CarbonBrief piece ends with a look-forward to the 2019 FF increase. Sadly that is another “increase” being estimated.
Carriesays
March 04: 413.37 ppm
March 03: 412.74 ppm
March 02: 411.92 ppm
March 01: 411.56 ppm
February 28: 414.12 ppm
Last Updated: March 5, 2019
That’s pretty good. Not too noisy, fairly consistent with recent weeks.
Last year was in the 409s +/-
CCHolleysays
RE. Mr. KIA @4
NASA says record cold coming due to low sunspot activity:
So far in the USA, they seem to be correct.
Of course Mr. KIA posts this without having made any effort to understand what NASA and the science was really saying. Nor does he post it with the intention of asking the forum to assist him in understanding the science better. Of course not, Mr. KIA would rather post such with glee as if it somehow lessens the science that he so willfully denies. Typical denier troll, no real interest in using this site for its intended purpose, learning science.
The increase in the methane burden began in 2007, with the mean global mole fraction in remote surface background air rising from about 1775 ppb in 2006 to 1850 ppb in 2017. Simultaneously the 13C/12C isotopic ratio (expressed as δ13CCH4) has shifted, in a new trend to more negative values that have been observed worldwide for over a decade. The causes of methane’s recent mole fraction increase are therefore either a change in the relative proportions (and totals) of emissions from biogenic and thermogenic and pyrogenic sources, especially in the tropics and sub‐tropics, or a decline in the atmospheric sink of methane, or both. Unfortunately, with limited measurement data sets, it is not currently possible to be more definitive.
Yeah, that would be good to clear up.
Killiansays
I honestly don’t see this as a problem in climate science, but would like to hear from any of the owners of this blog on this. (Not interested in non-scientists’ opinions as they are purely speculative.)
[Response: It’s true that many proposals are aspirational and probably over-promise what can be achieved on average, but I think that’s inevitable given the actual uncertainty in how research will work out and the competitive system that exists. It’s also true that reviewers and program managers are well aware of this and read these things accordingly. The biggest problem we have though is that researchers write too many proposals, and slice their good ideas too thinly. We would all be better off if we wrote fewer (but better) proposals for the same pot of money. I don’t buy the rest of the argument. – gavin]
Carriesays
(copy/paste/edit) CO2 monitoring
The annual (2018 versus 2017) numbers were updated for Mauna Loa and Global with the new months updates:
Mauna Loa: +2.86ppm
Global: +2.82ppm
At the global level, the numbers so far this decade are now as below, with an average of 2.41 ppm
(vs. 2.02 the previous decade and 1.47 in the 1990s):
2011 1.70
2012 2.39
2013 2.41
2014 2.02
2015 2.91
2016 2.86
2017 2.13
2018 2.82 2018 CO2 Growth is very close to the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.
2019 ytd growth level (Jan/Feb/Mar) is noticeably and consistently above the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016 – and still no El Nino in sight affecting those numbers.
A MONTH WITHOUT SUNSPOTS: There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019.
The last time a full calendar month passed without a sunspot was August 2008. At the time, the sun was in the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now a new Solar Minimum is in progress and it is shaping up to be similarly deep. So far this year, the sun has been blank 73% of the time–the same as 2008.
Solar Minimum is a normal part of the solar cycle. Every ~11 years, sunspot counts drop toward zero. Dark cores that produce solar flares and CMEs vanish from the solar disk, leaving the sun blank for long stretches of time. These minima have been coming and going with regularity since the sunspot cycle was discovered in 1859.
However, not all Solar Minima are alike. The last one in 2008-2009 surprised observers with its depth and side-effects. Sunspot counts dropped to a 100-year low; the sun dimmed by 0.1%; Earth’s upper atmosphere collapsed, allowing space junk to accumulate; the pressure of the solar wind flagged while cosmic rays (normally repelled by solar wind) surged to Space Age highs. All these things are happening again.
The Zeller & Nikolov theory is nonsense.
As well as ignoring all of physics, Zeller & Nikolov hide their method & their errors within complexity.
The big big Zeller & Nikolov error is saying the temperature of an air-less Earth is equal to that of the Moon temperature (which is air-less). In Volokin & ReLlez (their names backwards) they say:-
“We presented evidence that the Moon is a perfect airless grey-body equivalent of Earth.”
Wrong.
The Moon rotates with the sun in 708 hours. The Earth 24 hours.
The Moon is on-average cold because it has a long very hot day, and a long very cold night. The long hot day emits large amounts of energy (j = σ T^4. Daytime Tmax[moon]= 389K. j=1300W/sq m. Nighttime Tmin[moon]= 93K. j=4W/sq m. Temperature range 389-93= 296K.)
An air-less Earth with a 24-hour day would have a Temperature range one-tenth that of the Moon, ~30K, so no very high noon-day temperatures emitting large amounts of noon-day energy. So, without that lost noon-day energy, an average air-less Earth temperature will be much much higher than the Moon.
.
Lags between dTemp & dCO2.
I am not absolutely sure why you ask. There are two different discussions of dTemp-dCO2 lags. One is set out by Simon C @20 above. The other is the different time taken by dTemp (~4 months) and dCO2 (~8 months) to react to the ENSO. So it isn’t a simple ‘causal’ lag between dTemp & dCO2. Rainfall has a big part in it.
But dTemp & dCO2 in the context of Nikolov & Zeller?
Nikolov & Zeller do not explain the dTemp of recent decades with their silly theory. Nobody discusses a dTemp-then-dCO2 lag (or vis-à-vis) with Nikolov & Zeller. If their silly theory is used, dCO2 has increased pressure by 0.005%. We can add the increased H2O which has triple the effect. So pressure is 0.02% greater. The Nikolov & Zeller theory suggests this would increase global temperature by +0.001ºC. This does not explain the +1ºC warming of recent times.
Ray Ladburysays
Killian and Gavin@28,
Nobody I know takes grant proposals seriously–least of all the reviewers. If the reviewers are proficient in the subject matter, they pretty much skim the “benefits” section and jump right into the technical.
Trying to specify the benefits of research before the results of the research are in is bound to be bullshit. It is virtually certain that there will be benefits. Society benefits any time knowledge is increased–not just from the increase in knowledge, but also from the techniques developed by ingenious nerds so that they can satisfy their outsized curiosity. This is obvious to anyone willing to look at the history of how science has benefited mankind. It was what underlay Vannevar Bush’s advocacy of basic research. There was a man who understood how science worked.
Unfortunately, now there are a lot more people who don’t understand how science works–and Ms. Hossenfelder is among them. If they don’t see immediate to their own small concerns, they toss out the technological baby with the scientific bathwater.
Can you imagine if NASA had to justify landing a man on the moon back in 1957? If they had, I guarantee we wouldn’t be typing this conversation on computers on anything like the world wide web.
“A cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”–Oscar Wilde
DrMOSsays
Hi, first timer here but with a question that’s been bugging me. Specifically, I’m curious why sea levels continued to increase at a 2 mm/year clip from 1940-1980 when the global temperature remained quite flat? Thanks in advance!
Paul D.says
Regarding #4 KIA’s remark that: “So far in the USA, they seem to be correct”, implying below-average temperatures in the USA this winter, NOAA summarizes its temperature records for the US thusly:
Temperature:
• “For January, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 32.7°F [0.4°C], 2.6°F [1.4°C] above the 20th century average, ranking in the warmest third of the 125-year period of record.”
• “Parts of the southeast, mid-Atlantic, High Plains and western U.S. were warmer than average. California ranked 11th warmest in January and was the only state to rank much-above-average for the month. No state ranked below average for the month.”
• “Below-average temperatures were confined to parts of Michigan, New York and Colorado…”
• “The Alaska January temperature was 7.4°F, 5.2°F above the long-term average. This ranked in the warmest third of the 95-year period of record for the state.”
Let me also make and obvious point regarding the media-sensationalized record daily low temperature set at many US Midwest stations in January 31, 2019. This cold snap was remarkable in its brevity and was preceded by a week of near-to-above average temperatures and followed at many locations by 6 days of much above average (even daily record warm) temperatures. So even if we consider just a 14 day period straddling this cold snap, the temperature was near or above the climate mean at most locations.
A single record cold day does not a climate make.
rtremblaysays
thanks a lot MA Rodger
in spite of my bad english you understood me well.
you also gave me interesting information with references. I really appreciate.
I know one person who argues that it is possible to determine a 3 month lag CO2 vs. GMAT and that delta T (GMAT) is always before delta CO2.
Do you believe possible to support such a theory with recent data (last 10 years, 20 or more ) ?
siddsays
Re: ” why sea levels continued to increase at a 2 mm/year clip from 1940-1980 when the global temperature remained quite flat? ”
That’s a nice question. Here is my attempt at an answer, but perhaps one of the SLR/globalT/oceanographers will step in.
ocean absorbs 90+% of heat, so given the noise level in global average T the signal of radiative imbalance could disappear during that period. However, the oceans are good integrators of heat influx, integration lowers noise, so thermosteric sea level rise signal continued to be seen above the noise in tidal gauge record. As for land ice melt contribution to SLR, i think there is some evidence that PIG was destabilized in the 40’s, but i couldn’t swear to that last bit.
DrMOS @34,
Sea Level Rise requires ice to melt and ocean waters to warm up and expand. These are very slow processes. That SLR continued 1940-80 shows the equlibrium temperature previously dictating Sea Level was lower than the temperature through those years 1940-80.
This is perhaps an argument for the temperatures in the many earlier centuries being significantly lower than 1940-80, else why would the equilibrium temperature be lower.
Further, the last vestige of SLR from the last ice age is reckoned to have stopped some 3,000 years ago, millenia after the Holocene Thermal Maximum, again demonstrating the slow process as well as the absence of any warming equivalent to today’s over recent millenia.
Mind, it is a little more complicated as a regional temperature increase (ie the Arctic) could be where there is lots of ice waiting to melt, and indeed the high northern latitudes were a big part of the 1910-40 warming.
IPCC AR5 Figure 13-14 is instructive of the slow nature of SLR. Fig 13-14 – (unfortunately the caption isn’t available with the graphic on its own) shows from top to bottom [a&f] Thermal expansion, [b&g] Glaciers, [c&h] Greenland, [d&i] Antarctica, [e&j] Global contributions to SLR, the right-hand column after 2,000 years and the left-hand column at an effective equilibrium. The big difference is the Greenland contribution which at AGW of roughly +1.5ºC-&-above will go into melt down but would take may millenia to do this (although once it’s going it would take a new ice age to stop it).
Fig 13-14 suggests that if we have raised global temperature +1ºC, we have started 2.3 metres of SLR, unless we reduce the temperature back down.
Astringentsays
#34 Dmos
Let’s break that down – firstly did global temperatures remain ‘quite flat from 1940 to 1980’?
Look at the graph of global land and sea temperature on https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ – it’s not flat – its more that the early 1940s saw exceptionally high temperatures that weren’t
exceeded until the 1980s. Take away the 1940s peak and there is fairly consistent rise.
Then you also have to take into account that thermal expansion is just one factor in sea level rise. The 1940’s ‘blip’ is thought to be largely aerosol driven – and aerosols might well reduce temperature while increasing melt rate – (dirty snow melts quicker).
Does anyone have the line centers and line strengths for the N2-N2, CH4-CH4, and N2-CH4 dimers? I’m trying to write an RCM of Titan, and I can’t seem to find figures online. The literature is closed off to me because I don’t have the money to get past paywalls, and I don’t have the software to take advantage of HITRAN.
It racked up a respectable but not impressive 26 citations, I see. But this bit seems rather interesting in light of the cold outbreaks we seem to keep having (generally well interlarded, as Paul D. pointed out WRT the recent one, with warm spells):
Thus, the seasonal heating of the atmosphere by upward surface energy fluxes (SHF) is reduced in the high latitudes in a 23CO2world. The change in the seasonal heating of the atmosphere due to CO2doubling has a clear imprint on the seasonal amplitude of atmospheric temperature;the seasonal cycle of temperature increases in the up-per troposphere of the extratropics (where the seasonal amplitude of SWABS increases) and decreases at the surface in the polar regions (where the seasonal amplitude of SHF decreases) because of CO2 doubling(Fig. 10). As a consequence, the atmospheric column in a 2xCO2 world is stabilized in the summer and destabilized in the winter.
Francis & Vavrus hypothesis mechanism, potentially? Or am I crazy in thinking that’s what I scent there?
from the piece: “Scientists say they’re “surprised” to discover rain falling even during the long Arctic winter.
The massive Greenland ice-sheet is being watched closely because it holds a huge store of frozen water.
And if all of that ice melted, the sea level would rise by seven metres, threatening coastal population centres around the world.
Precipitation usually falls as snow in winter – rather than as rain – which can balance out any melting of the ice in the summer.”
No worries, chin up
Mike
mikesays
Feb monthly average came in with a kind of big number:
February CO2
February 2019: 411.75 ppm
February 2018: 408.32 ppm
3.43 ppm increase in yoy
February 2009 was 387.48
so about 24.27 ppm over ten years.
Tamino says we should try to stay under 435 ppm. We still have a little headroom there.
No worries,
Mike
Killiansays
Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science, perfectly illustrating why I said I wasn’t interested in non-blig owner comments.
Rather than believing a scientist doesn’t understand science, I suggest a difference between physics and climate science.
Physicists perhaps *are* doing more speculative, what if? sorts of research. Climate scientists are doing deadly serious, potentially existentially impoortant work that is quite difficult to overstate in terms if impacts. I.e., their research just might end up saving everyone.
Russellsays
44
Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science, perfectly illustrating why I said I wasn’t interested in non-blig owner comments.
rtremblay @36,
Temperature wobbles are driven by ENSO. The ENSO wobble is graphed here and I maintain a graph showing both the ENSO wobble and the temperature wobble here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). Temperature lags behind ENSO by some 4 months.
CO2 wobbles are also driven by ENSO but the time lag is (in general) longer at 8 months.
This 4-month/8-month difference would allow an analysis to show CO2 wobbles lagging behind temperature wobbles. But this is because of a common cause and so it is not because temperature itself causes an increase in CO2 levels.
Thus when you ask “Do you believe possible to support such a theory with recent data (last 10 years, 20 or more )?”, the answer is “No”.
The extra CO2 that causes the wobble is driven by drought over areas of tropical forest. There is also regional elevated temperature but it is the lack of rain that is the critical factor. It has even been measured by satellite (Scientific paper Chatterjee et al (2017). A blog description here.)
KIA 44: Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science
BPL: Ray Ladbury IS a professor of physics.
Ray Ladburysays
Killian,
Having a PhD–be it in physics, climate science, biology…does in no way indicate whether one actually understands science and the complex role it plays in modern society.
I also have a PhD in physics. I’ve worked in particle physics, international development, science journalism and space physics. I’ve read a lot and thought a lot about what makes science science, and the history of science and the role it plays in society. I would urge you to look into the role Vannevar Bush played in ensuring basic research got funded and the benefits of that research were diffused into society and the economy. It is clear that Ms. Hossenfelder never has.
CCHolleysays
DrMOS @34
I think the simplest answer to this question is that the oceans continued to warm during this period. Why? Likely because the industrial aerosols that caused cooling were regional and mostly in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere while the Southern Hemisphere has more ocean coverage. This variance between the hemispheres can be seen in the surface temperature record.
I’m having a hard time finding data showing how much global temperature has been changed with different revisions of the reporting organizations over the years. I’ve been told it’s a lot but I doubt that. I can easily find how much the temperature is adjusted but not how much it has changed with different revisions.
[Response: This is the summary of the GISTEMP history since 1981: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/ At the global mean, changes in input data and methodology only have a small impact. Regionally these things can be more important. – gavin ]
MLO weekly
Week beginning on February 24, 2019: 412.40 ppm +3.62
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.78 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 388.42 ppm +2.40 avg/yr
Last updated: March 3, 2019
Making wkly growth yoy the last 6 weeks @ 3.68, 3.07, 3.82, 3.86, 2.53, and 3.62 – could be a pattern albeit a short one? January was +2.87. It’s the 2.53 week that looks more wobbly and noisy than the rest.
March 02: 411.92 ppm
March 01: 411.56 ppm
February 28: 414.12 ppm
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
At the tag-end of last month’s UV thread I linked to a two-year-old graphic showing Antarctic Sea Ice nose-diving through 2016. I thought to up-date the graphic to show how things have worked out since. A graph of JAXA Antarctic SIE anomalies 1979-to-date is posted here (Usually 2 clicks to ‘download yor attachment’).
NASA says record cold coming due to low sunspot activity:
http://spacecoastdaily.com/2018/11/nasa-warns-record-low-temperatures-could-be-on-the-way-after-latest-sunspot-activity/
So far in the USA, they seem to be correct.
i want to know if someone have information about theory of delta T increase before delta CO2 ?
I think is about Zeller publication. is it possible to determine if temperature grow up before CO2 for few month ?
What is accuracies of TMAG temperature and CO2 ??
please give me simple explanation !
181 nigelj says:
3 Mar 2019 at 1:55 AM
Mike, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and whats more you do it badly. I know my views are complicated to grasp. Try harder old chap :)
===
And taking people’s words totally out of context and throwing them back in someone’s face passive aggressively while misapplying those words to something else is the lowest form of Logical Fallacies. It’s cheap as.
Can AI translate high resolution convective modeling into greater GCM realism?
Beautiful as Schneider’s first Nature results may be, it may a bit early to declare victory.
Mr. KIA@4
Wow, that was the most confused mess of gobbledygook that I have ever read about space weather. There might be some science in there somewhere, but buggered if I could find it.
The only part that made any sense was the contraction of Earth’s atmosphere and the effect on space junk. That’s real. The rest, and the implication that somehow this is going to freeze the planet was bullshit.
rtremblay @5,
Can you confirm which Zeller publication you speak of? Indeed, which Zeller?
I can otherwise but assume it is Karl Zeller of Nikolov & Zeller fame (aka Volokin and ReLlez) who do discuss a quantity GMAT = Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature which may be what you are calling TMAG.
For those unfamiliar with the crazy theorising of Nikolov & Zeller, they use a pile of silly pseudo-physicsal calculations to assert that atmospheric pressure is a major input into global surface temperature, comparing temperatures on Earth, the Moon, Venus, Mars Titon & Triton. So you need a good sense of humour when you read their work, eg Nikolov & Zeller (2017)
#4 Note that this cooling is in the thermosphere, 80 km altitude and up, and that “There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface.”
Maybe a first…
Virtual Climate Change Lecture [CS – Space Alpha] http://climatestate.com/2019/03/02/virtual-climate-change-lecture-cs-space-alpha
This is a brief 2-3 minutes presentation with snippets from a science lecture, part of a game I am working on. If the player attends he will receive some experience points of type climate science. There will be a couple of these lectures throughout the game.
Another aspect will be some sort of research facility, with super computers, climate proxy laboratory, where the player can initiate experiments, ie. modeling future climate scenarios. Results will unlock certain NPCs who provide subsequent missions, ie. travel to Siberia ESAS region, or to Alaska Fairbanks, conduct a field trip to collect soil samples, or in remote Greenland research station.
Mr KIA:
from the Fox article:
“Mr Mlynczak later clarified to Climate Feedback that there was no relationship between temperatures in space and that on earth.
He said: “There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface.
“NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface.””
4 Mr. KIA
“The stories claim to be based on a September 27th article at Space Weather Archive, in which NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak discusses the influence of current low solar activity on the Earth’s thermosphere—a layer of the atmosphere that begins about 65 miles above the surface. Mlynczak explained to Climate Feedback that headline claims of coming cold weather are “false”:
‘There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface. NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface.'”
Explanation of KIA’s shenanigans on Climate Feedback.
Carrie “And taking people’s words totally out of context and throwing them back in someone’s face passive aggressively while misapplying those words to something else is the lowest form of Logical Fallacies. It’s cheap as.”
You are quite right, except I didn’t do that to Mike. I simply stated the facts.
What is going on with GRACE-FO? I understand they had to turn off the main unit June 19. 2018, but were back on a backup unit October 19. There have not been any information on their web-site since November 1. 2018. Can we expect a long gap in the data when they arrive? How long gap? Anyone? Are there anyone here from GFZ/JPL/NASA that now anything? I posted my concern also i the February thread, but received only silence.
This does not look good to me: https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/data/grace-data/
Thank you Gavin. Just what I needed.
14 nigelj – (sigh) I was talking about mike not what you said you silly billy. :-)
This paper is bouncing around in the echo chamber, because the author concludes our added CO2 has only a negligible effect on the temperature. I don’t understand the abstract. Can someone here explain it?
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta
[Response: It’s nonsense. – gavin]
Australian BOM keeps ENSO at Neutral in their latest update
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
Rtremblay @5 The usual basis for identifying an increase of atmospheric CO2 before the temperature starts to rise is the atmospheric record of CO2 from bubbles in the ice in Antarctica, where the longest records exist. However, it is tricky to estimate the precise relationship between temperature (usual proxy, delta deuterium in the ice) and CO2 (recorded in bubbles in the ice) because there is a time lag between initial ice deposition (temperature record) and the “sealing” of the atmospheric ice bubbles by compaction in the snow. Even so, it seems apparent that atmospheric CO2 begins to rise shortly (a few hundred years) before global temperatures start to increase. This is no surprise; glacial-interglacial climate oscillations are understood to be driven or paced by changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry (Hays, Imbrie, Shackleton Science 1976) and these oscillations in turn have driven or paced the climate changes. The oceans warm, circulation patterns changes, the oceans release CO2, and this in turn contributes to the ongoing climate change, so that CO2 is both a response and a feedback. The current situation is somewhat different because orbital factors are probably (but cf Berger and Loutre, Science 2002 on this) driving the climate the other way, towards cooling, whilst anthropogenic CO2 is overwhelmingly forcing it in the opposite direction, towards warming. I’m sure that this has been covered by many previous posts.
#4 If you actually investigated the science, you would find that the NASA scientist is talking about cooling in the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, and he explicitly states that this cooling has NO effect on the lower atmosphere, which is warming and will continue to warm. The current cold in parts of the Northern Hemisphere is because it’s winter. If you don’t understand what causes winter, I’m sure you can find the information somewhere on the internet. You have heard of the internet, right???
That “pressure causes temperature” meme has been making the rounds in denialist circles for a long time now, although it’s usually applied to Venus. It’s a misapplication of the ideal gas law, which does indeed show that if you compress some gas, it heats up. But if a one-time compression event had happened on Venus, the heat would have radiated away by now (since, according to the pressure puppies, there is no greenhouse effect). Static pressure does NOT create heat, otherwise you’d have a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. And the Marianas Trench would be boiling instead of icy cold.
The GCP initial estimates for 2018 FF CO2 emissions published last November (the stuff that gets the skyrocketeers sniffing the smoke from the blue-touch-paper and they love the smell of blue-touch-paper in the morning): these estimates have been revised downward somewhat as reported by CarbonBrief. The 2018 LUC numbers are still in the calculator.
The CarbonBrief piece ends with a look-forward to the 2019 FF increase. Sadly that is another “increase” being estimated.
March 04: 413.37 ppm
March 03: 412.74 ppm
March 02: 411.92 ppm
March 01: 411.56 ppm
February 28: 414.12 ppm
Last Updated: March 5, 2019
That’s pretty good. Not too noisy, fairly consistent with recent weeks.
Last year was in the 409s +/-
RE. Mr. KIA @4
Of course Mr. KIA posts this without having made any effort to understand what NASA and the science was really saying. Nor does he post it with the intention of asking the forum to assist him in understanding the science better. Of course not, Mr. KIA would rather post such with glee as if it somehow lessens the science that he so willfully denies. Typical denier troll, no real interest in using this site for its intended purpose, learning science.
February 2019: 411.75 ppm +3.43 ppm
February 2018: 408.32 ppm
Last updated: March 5, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
More on the increase in methane:
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-methane-atmosphere-accelerating-20190301-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1vGl0_3137HvUStlDHTxtANRdYkVzH-MjiB-s7Jr9rPoJ34jftgC0jnt0
The underlying paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006009
From the abstract:
Yeah, that would be good to clear up.
I honestly don’t see this as a problem in climate science, but would like to hear from any of the owners of this blog on this. (Not interested in non-scientists’ opinions as they are purely speculative.)
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/merchants-of-hype.html
[Response: It’s true that many proposals are aspirational and probably over-promise what can be achieved on average, but I think that’s inevitable given the actual uncertainty in how research will work out and the competitive system that exists. It’s also true that reviewers and program managers are well aware of this and read these things accordingly. The biggest problem we have though is that researchers write too many proposals, and slice their good ideas too thinly. We would all be better off if we wrote fewer (but better) proposals for the same pot of money. I don’t buy the rest of the argument. – gavin]
(copy/paste/edit) CO2 monitoring
The annual (2018 versus 2017) numbers were updated for Mauna Loa and Global with the new months updates:
Mauna Loa: +2.86ppm
Global: +2.82ppm
At the global level, the numbers so far this decade are now as below, with an average of 2.41 ppm
(vs. 2.02 the previous decade and 1.47 in the 1990s):
2011 1.70
2012 2.39
2013 2.41
2014 2.02
2015 2.91
2016 2.86
2017 2.13
2018 2.82
2018 CO2 Growth is very close to the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.
2019 ytd growth level (Jan/Feb/Mar) is noticeably and consistently above the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016 – and still no El Nino in sight affecting those numbers.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/03/unforced-variations-mar-2019/#comment-721869
Thank you MA Rodger 9. You have answer my question.
and good translation of TMAG = GMAT :) … excuse me, i’m a french person (from Quebec city in canada)
I’m interest to any information about Zeller & Nikolov theory and question of other scientific ?
Actually what is the lag between CO2 and Temperature ? is it possible to evaluate this ?? consider climate system have more than two variables !!!
A Month Without Sunspots: February 2019
| from the have-to-wear-shades dept.
| posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday March 05, @10:11 (News)
| https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/03/05/0538243
+———————————————+
An Anonymous Coward writes:
A MONTH WITHOUT SUNSPOTS: There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019.
The last time a full calendar month passed without a sunspot was August 2008. At the time, the sun was in the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now a new Solar Minimum is in progress and it is shaping up to be similarly deep. So far this year, the sun has been blank 73% of the time–the same as 2008.
Solar Minimum is a normal part of the solar cycle. Every ~11 years, sunspot counts drop toward zero. Dark cores that produce solar flares and CMEs vanish from the solar disk, leaving the sun blank for long stretches of time. These minima have been coming and going with regularity since the sunspot cycle was discovered in 1859.
However, not all Solar Minima are alike. The last one in 2008-2009 surprised observers with its depth and side-effects. Sunspot counts dropped to a 100-year low; the sun dimmed by 0.1%; Earth’s upper atmosphere collapsed, allowing space junk to accumulate; the pressure of the solar wind flagged while cosmic rays (normally repelled by solar wind) surged to Space Age highs. All these things are happening again.
[0]http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=03&year=2019
————————————
[1]Original Submission
Discuss this story at: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=19/03/05/0538243
Links:
0. http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=03&year=2019
1. https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=32130
rtremblay @30,
The Zeller & Nikolov theory is nonsense.
As well as ignoring all of physics, Zeller & Nikolov hide their method & their errors within complexity.
The big big Zeller & Nikolov error is saying the temperature of an air-less Earth is equal to that of the Moon temperature (which is air-less). In Volokin & ReLlez (their names backwards) they say:-
Wrong.
The Moon rotates with the sun in 708 hours. The Earth 24 hours.
The Moon is on-average cold because it has a long very hot day, and a long very cold night. The long hot day emits large amounts of energy (j = σ T^4. Daytime Tmax[moon]= 389K. j=1300W/sq m. Nighttime Tmin[moon]= 93K. j=4W/sq m. Temperature range 389-93= 296K.)
An air-less Earth with a 24-hour day would have a Temperature range one-tenth that of the Moon, ~30K, so no very high noon-day temperatures emitting large amounts of noon-day energy. So, without that lost noon-day energy, an average air-less Earth temperature will be much much higher than the Moon.
.
Lags between dTemp & dCO2.
I am not absolutely sure why you ask. There are two different discussions of dTemp-dCO2 lags. One is set out by Simon C @20 above. The other is the different time taken by dTemp (~4 months) and dCO2 (~8 months) to react to the ENSO. So it isn’t a simple ‘causal’ lag between dTemp & dCO2. Rainfall has a big part in it.
But dTemp & dCO2 in the context of Nikolov & Zeller?
Nikolov & Zeller do not explain the dTemp of recent decades with their silly theory. Nobody discusses a dTemp-then-dCO2 lag (or vis-à-vis) with Nikolov & Zeller. If their silly theory is used, dCO2 has increased pressure by 0.005%. We can add the increased H2O which has triple the effect. So pressure is 0.02% greater. The Nikolov & Zeller theory suggests this would increase global temperature by +0.001ºC. This does not explain the +1ºC warming of recent times.
Killian and Gavin@28,
Nobody I know takes grant proposals seriously–least of all the reviewers. If the reviewers are proficient in the subject matter, they pretty much skim the “benefits” section and jump right into the technical.
Trying to specify the benefits of research before the results of the research are in is bound to be bullshit. It is virtually certain that there will be benefits. Society benefits any time knowledge is increased–not just from the increase in knowledge, but also from the techniques developed by ingenious nerds so that they can satisfy their outsized curiosity. This is obvious to anyone willing to look at the history of how science has benefited mankind. It was what underlay Vannevar Bush’s advocacy of basic research. There was a man who understood how science worked.
Unfortunately, now there are a lot more people who don’t understand how science works–and Ms. Hossenfelder is among them. If they don’t see immediate to their own small concerns, they toss out the technological baby with the scientific bathwater.
Can you imagine if NASA had to justify landing a man on the moon back in 1957? If they had, I guarantee we wouldn’t be typing this conversation on computers on anything like the world wide web.
“A cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”–Oscar Wilde
Hi, first timer here but with a question that’s been bugging me. Specifically, I’m curious why sea levels continued to increase at a 2 mm/year clip from 1940-1980 when the global temperature remained quite flat? Thanks in advance!
Regarding #4 KIA’s remark that: “So far in the USA, they seem to be correct”, implying below-average temperatures in the USA this winter, NOAA summarizes its temperature records for the US thusly:
Temperature:
• “For January, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 32.7°F [0.4°C], 2.6°F [1.4°C] above the 20th century average, ranking in the warmest third of the 125-year period of record.”
• “Parts of the southeast, mid-Atlantic, High Plains and western U.S. were warmer than average. California ranked 11th warmest in January and was the only state to rank much-above-average for the month. No state ranked below average for the month.”
• “Below-average temperatures were confined to parts of Michigan, New York and Colorado…”
• “The Alaska January temperature was 7.4°F, 5.2°F above the long-term average. This ranked in the warmest third of the 95-year period of record for the state.”
Let me also make and obvious point regarding the media-sensationalized record daily low temperature set at many US Midwest stations in January 31, 2019. This cold snap was remarkable in its brevity and was preceded by a week of near-to-above average temperatures and followed at many locations by 6 days of much above average (even daily record warm) temperatures. So even if we consider just a 14 day period straddling this cold snap, the temperature was near or above the climate mean at most locations.
A single record cold day does not a climate make.
thanks a lot MA Rodger
in spite of my bad english you understood me well.
you also gave me interesting information with references. I really appreciate.
I know one person who argues that it is possible to determine a 3 month lag CO2 vs. GMAT and that delta T (GMAT) is always before delta CO2.
Do you believe possible to support such a theory with recent data (last 10 years, 20 or more ) ?
Re: ” why sea levels continued to increase at a 2 mm/year clip from 1940-1980 when the global temperature remained quite flat? ”
That’s a nice question. Here is my attempt at an answer, but perhaps one of the SLR/globalT/oceanographers will step in.
ocean absorbs 90+% of heat, so given the noise level in global average T the signal of radiative imbalance could disappear during that period. However, the oceans are good integrators of heat influx, integration lowers noise, so thermosteric sea level rise signal continued to be seen above the noise in tidal gauge record. As for land ice melt contribution to SLR, i think there is some evidence that PIG was destabilized in the 40’s, but i couldn’t swear to that last bit.
sidd
DrMOS @34,
Sea Level Rise requires ice to melt and ocean waters to warm up and expand. These are very slow processes. That SLR continued 1940-80 shows the equlibrium temperature previously dictating Sea Level was lower than the temperature through those years 1940-80.
This is perhaps an argument for the temperatures in the many earlier centuries being significantly lower than 1940-80, else why would the equilibrium temperature be lower.
Further, the last vestige of SLR from the last ice age is reckoned to have stopped some 3,000 years ago, millenia after the Holocene Thermal Maximum, again demonstrating the slow process as well as the absence of any warming equivalent to today’s over recent millenia.
Mind, it is a little more complicated as a regional temperature increase (ie the Arctic) could be where there is lots of ice waiting to melt, and indeed the high northern latitudes were a big part of the 1910-40 warming.
IPCC AR5 Figure 13-14 is instructive of the slow nature of SLR. Fig 13-14 – (unfortunately the caption isn’t available with the graphic on its own) shows from top to bottom [a&f] Thermal expansion, [b&g] Glaciers, [c&h] Greenland, [d&i] Antarctica, [e&j] Global contributions to SLR, the right-hand column after 2,000 years and the left-hand column at an effective equilibrium. The big difference is the Greenland contribution which at AGW of roughly +1.5ºC-&-above will go into melt down but would take may millenia to do this (although once it’s going it would take a new ice age to stop it).
Fig 13-14 suggests that if we have raised global temperature +1ºC, we have started 2.3 metres of SLR, unless we reduce the temperature back down.
#34 Dmos
Let’s break that down – firstly did global temperatures remain ‘quite flat from 1940 to 1980’?
Look at the graph of global land and sea temperature on https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ – it’s not flat – its more that the early 1940s saw exceptionally high temperatures that weren’t
exceeded until the 1980s. Take away the 1940s peak and there is fairly consistent rise.
While a graph of sea level rise (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) doesn’t show a 1940s drop in the rate of rise, that’s largely because the human eye is poor at picking out subtle variations. A better way of looking at the data is to plot the rate of rise – (e.g. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/dont-estimate-acceleration-by-fitting-a-quadratic/sea_level_rise_vs_temperature/) and you will see that there is a reduction in the rate of rise that nicely matches the 1940s ‘blip’.
Then you also have to take into account that thermal expansion is just one factor in sea level rise. The 1940’s ‘blip’ is thought to be largely aerosol driven – and aerosols might well reduce temperature while increasing melt rate – (dirty snow melts quicker).
Does anyone have the line centers and line strengths for the N2-N2, CH4-CH4, and N2-CH4 dimers? I’m trying to write an RCM of Titan, and I can’t seem to find figures online. The literature is closed off to me because I don’t have the money to get past paywalls, and I don’t have the software to take advantage of HITRAN.
Hey, I just stumbled across this paper from 2013:
https://atmos.washington.edu/~david/Donohoe_Battisti_seasonal_2013.pdf
It racked up a respectable but not impressive 26 citations, I see. But this bit seems rather interesting in light of the cold outbreaks we seem to keep having (generally well interlarded, as Paul D. pointed out WRT the recent one, with warm spells):
Francis & Vavrus hypothesis mechanism, potentially? Or am I crazy in thinking that’s what I scent there?
The rain in Greenland falls mainly on the…
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47485847
melting glacier surfaces.
from the piece: “Scientists say they’re “surprised” to discover rain falling even during the long Arctic winter.
The massive Greenland ice-sheet is being watched closely because it holds a huge store of frozen water.
And if all of that ice melted, the sea level would rise by seven metres, threatening coastal population centres around the world.
Precipitation usually falls as snow in winter – rather than as rain – which can balance out any melting of the ice in the summer.”
No worries, chin up
Mike
Feb monthly average came in with a kind of big number:
February CO2
February 2019: 411.75 ppm
February 2018: 408.32 ppm
3.43 ppm increase in yoy
February 2009 was 387.48
so about 24.27 ppm over ten years.
Tamino says we should try to stay under 435 ppm. We still have a little headroom there.
No worries,
Mike
Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science, perfectly illustrating why I said I wasn’t interested in non-blig owner comments.
Rather than believing a scientist doesn’t understand science, I suggest a difference between physics and climate science.
Physicists perhaps *are* doing more speculative, what if? sorts of research. Climate scientists are doing deadly serious, potentially existentially impoortant work that is quite difficult to overstate in terms if impacts. I.e., their research just might end up saving everyone.
44
Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science, perfectly illustrating why I said I wasn’t interested in non-blig owner comments.
Have you tried posting in front of a mirror?
rtremblay @36,
Temperature wobbles are driven by ENSO. The ENSO wobble is graphed here and I maintain a graph showing both the ENSO wobble and the temperature wobble here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). Temperature lags behind ENSO by some 4 months.
CO2 wobbles are also driven by ENSO but the time lag is (in general) longer at 8 months.
This 4-month/8-month difference would allow an analysis to show CO2 wobbles lagging behind temperature wobbles. But this is because of a common cause and so it is not because temperature itself causes an increase in CO2 levels.
Thus when you ask “Do you believe possible to support such a theory with recent data (last 10 years, 20 or more )?”, the answer is “No”.
The extra CO2 that causes the wobble is driven by drought over areas of tropical forest. There is also regional elevated temperature but it is the lack of rain that is the critical factor. It has even been measured by satellite (Scientific paper Chatterjee et al (2017). A blog description here.)
KIA 44: Ray Ladbury says a professor of physics does not understand science
BPL: Ray Ladbury IS a professor of physics.
Killian,
Having a PhD–be it in physics, climate science, biology…does in no way indicate whether one actually understands science and the complex role it plays in modern society.
I also have a PhD in physics. I’ve worked in particle physics, international development, science journalism and space physics. I’ve read a lot and thought a lot about what makes science science, and the history of science and the role it plays in society. I would urge you to look into the role Vannevar Bush played in ensuring basic research got funded and the benefits of that research were diffused into society and the economy. It is clear that Ms. Hossenfelder never has.
DrMOS @34
I think the simplest answer to this question is that the oceans continued to warm during this period. Why? Likely because the industrial aerosols that caused cooling were regional and mostly in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere while the Southern Hemisphere has more ocean coverage. This variance between the hemispheres can be seen in the surface temperature record.
See: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/new-ocean-heat-content-histories/#more-22206
Also of note, perhaps there still remains a World War II bias in the SST record for the early 1940s period.
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14352-6
Hi,
First time post, so apologies if this has already been covered. Is there anything to the lead paper in this thread?
https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/aydxkn/gcms_have_systematically_overestimated_the/
[Response: Don’t think we specifically posted on it, but there was a twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/718156075049033728 – gavin]